tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 15, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
travel. the bill before us would allow individuals who hold a conceal-carry permit in their state of residence to carry that weapon in other states that allow conceal carry. this bill should be passed unanimously as should the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the views from the judiciary committee entitled loosening restrictions on the carrying of concealed guns. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. boren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. boren: i rise in support of h.r. 822, the national right-to-carry act of 2011. the second amendment of the constitution provides citizens with the individual right to keep and bear arms. this right enables americans to use firearms for self-protection, for hunting and other lawful activities.
h.r. 822 would guarantee that individuals who are legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon in their home state could also legally carry a concealed weapon in another state. . the bill seeks to protect our fundamental liberty, not restrict 2. just as one state recognizes a driver's license issued by another state, i believe states should recognize conceal and carry licenses issued by another. today some states already have reciprocity agreements to recognize the conceal and carry last laws of other states. while some do not. the result is a piecemeal system where a law-abiding citizen may be required to give up his or her weapon at the state line. if passed, this bill would streamline the system by making it more simple and uniform. h.r. 822 does not create federal standards for obtaining permits. nor does it require states to
adopt a specific licensing system. each state's right to determine its own permitting system will remain intact regardless of h.r. 822. you know, since the founding of our nation american citizens have had the constitutional right to bear arms and i believe this legislation is commonsense solution to preserve that right. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule today and to support final passage of h.r. 822. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. it's sad that we are taking time that should be spent on the economy and making communities safer and stronger to facilitate instead less rational and less effective gun safety laws. i deeply appreciate ms. slaughter putting "the new york
times" article from last sunday in the record. the gentleman from florida talks about his experience. well, in that article is sad evidence, for example in the state of washington where that tragic occurrence occurred, since 1995 more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained gun rights, and according to the analysis provided by the state and court system, of those more than 400, about 13% have subsequently committed new crimes and more than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degree, child rape, and drive by shooting. the gentleman talks about evidence. study in the american public health journal referenced in that article found that the nine handgun purchases to felons cut the risk of their committing new gun or violent crimes by 20% to 30%. and another study by the
journal of the american medical association found that handgun purchasers would at -- with at least one prior misdemeanor, not a felony, a misdemeanor were more than seven times as likely as those with no criminal record to be charged with new offenses. i come from a state that would have its protections undermined by this proposal. i think the fact we require character references, people have to be 21 years ever age, we prohibit concealed weapon carrying by dangerous criminals, those convicted of a misdemeanor such as assault, harassment, driving while intoxicated, i think those are reasonable. that's the minimum in oregon. and instead the enactment of this legislation will enable a race to the bottom. where the lowest common denominator will determine gun law, safety laws in oregon. i think that's wrong. i urge rejection of the rule
and the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, a member of the judiciary committee, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you. madam speaker, this bill undermines public safety and that's why law enforcement organizations oppose the bill. it said this is no national law established by this legislation. that's right. because if it would be a national law it would be national standards. this is rulely worse of -- actually worse. the law in effect would actually be the law of the state with the weakest concealed weapons permit that would essentially become the law of the land because you could use that permit in any state. this bill allows people who are ineligible to get a concealed weapons permit in a home state to go to another jurisdiction and get a concealed weapons permit and use that concealed
weapons mer mitt -- permit anywhere in the country except their home state. states have different minimum standards for concealed weapons such as some require minimum training so that you know what you're dealing with, others allow permits to certain sex offenders or domestic violence offenders. all of those minimum standards will be overridden by this bill which -- because permits from other states will have to be recognized. basic controversy, madam chair, presented by this bill is a question of what happens if more people carry firearms. some people believe that if more people carry firearms, the crime rate will go down. the studies that i have seen conclude that if more people are carrying firearms, it is more likely that somebody in their home or innocent neighbor will be killed, that's more likely than the firearm being successfully used to thwart a crime. we should not undermine public safety. we should allow states to set their own concealed weapons standards and defeat this rule
and if the rule passes defeat the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida wish to continue reserving. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman and thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition for the rule of h.r. 822. as you know this committee voted down a motion to consider the bill threw the open rule. -- through the open rule. this is an important issue we need to have the entire nation hear about it and have all of us have our voices heard. i want to make sure i get to speak on an amendment of mine that is going to be considered. under my amendment states would be required to proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by h.r. 822. this would restore the critical decision of who would be able to carry a concealed handgun in our communities back to where it belongs.
to local governments that have to deal with the policing and other consequences such as this will do. we also will hear about other amendments that would restore rights back to states and safety back to our communities. and some sanity back into this debate. madam speaker, i think it's extremely important that we look at this as a states rights issue. my state, we have concealed weapon laws. we allow people to have concealed weapons. but there are other states that do not come up to our standard and we don't want them coming into our state and telling us what to do. i suggest that we really look at this very carefully and hopefully my colleagues will definitely vote for my amendment tomorrow when it comes up. we can deal with this. the supreme court has said people have the right to own a gun. they also said localities have the right to make the laws safe for their constituents. i happen to believe that h.r. 822 and the way this rule is
written is not good for the united states of america. it's not good for the people of america. and i know it's not good for my state of new york. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. and members of the house. i rise today in support of the underlying bill and the rule. this is a critical issue with respect to americans' basic rights. courts have held over almost a century and a half that the right to bear arms is simply more than the second and 14th amendment. decided in the case of beard
vs. u.s. in 1895, that citizens were entitled to rappel force by force and entitled to stand their ground and meet any attack made on them by a deadly weapon. it then ruled three years ago in the d.c. vs. heller case where they essentially declared self-defense is an inherent right, central to the second amendment. and a case emanating from my state of illinois, in the case of mcdonald vs. city of chicago, further elaborated and extended that constitutional protection. so the underlying bill and our ability, american citizens' right, and the ability to carry firearms from state to state, and to have that essential right built in is critical. i rise in reluctant support, however, of the rule and the bill only from the standpoint and that's the reason for in part for my time here today, which i thank the gentleman for and i thank the members of this
chamber for. illinois is unique in that we have no carry concealed weapon law. we have no ability on the part of illinois citizens to defend themselves. we have no right or ability on the part of illinois citizens to exercise their second and 14th amendment rights. this bill as it now reads to would extend the right only to other states, and i'm supportive of that because i think it's critical we extend that right, but i am committed as well as a number of my illinois colleagues, and i think second amendment and fundamental rights congressmen throughout the united states to restore that right and bring that right to illinois citizens. time after time after time as i visit the coffee houses, as i meet with individuals throughout the district, as i meet with people throughout the state, we are essentially denied in illinois the rights and privileges of every other citizen of every other state in the union except illinois. that's a glare defishency.
it's an omission. and i believe it strikes at the core of our constitutional guarantees. i am going to continue to fight not only on this bill but on stand alone legislation down the line and through the process to bring to illinois the same rights, keep and bear arms, second, 14th amendment rights that other citizens have throughout the country. it's extraordinarily important. it reaches the essence of our constitution, the essence of our guarantees as participants in a republic of civil liberties. and i believe that it is critical we continue to fight the fight now. together with my colleagues, congressman hultgren and others from illinois who have joined me in this process. i appreciate the time. and i support the bill. i support the rule. but i also support and i want to conclude by saying this, illinois citizens rights to keep and bear arms that are being flagrantly denied by our illinois legislature. thank you, madam speaker.
thank you, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, a member of the judiciary committee committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to this rule and the bill, the national rightle to carry reciprocity act. it's the epitome of federal arrogance that would impose its will on the 50 legislatures in this country. this bill tramples on our system of federalism and endangers the public safety by forcing states to allow the carrying of concealed firearms by out-of-state residents even if they have not met basic licensing or training requirements mandated for carrying in that state. this total respect or disregard for state laws may come as a
shock to americans who have always been told that these tea party republicans want to shrink the scope of the federal government. but instead of creating jobs, we are here considering strongly a bill that is opposed by law enforcement officials throughout the states and throughout the country. this bill is nothing more than a piece of special interest legislation for the national rifle association. under this bill, states will no longer be able to set standards for who may carry concealed loaded guns in public. states that prevent those convicted of violent crime would no longer be able to enforce their state laws. but it is not, ladies and gentlemen, absolute. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying
bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nublingent: i yield to the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. pompeo: i applaud the house for taking up h.r. 822 the national right to carry press pros it act. as a veteran and strong defender of the second amendment, i encourage all my colleagues to support me in this important piece of legislation. . in kansas in 2007 we began to issue concealed carry permits. since then kansas has entered into agreements with many other states across the region to create interstate reciprocity. and while many states have similar agreements, they benefit only a portion of the american population and kansas knows that states that have this fundamental right to keep and bear arms. the legislation and the rule we're considering today offer an opportunity for the federal government to facilitate cohesion between the states
without extending its reach further into our laws than is necessary. the national right to carry reciprocity act would allow concealed carry permits in one state to be legally recognized in another and accepted in every state of the union who has a similar set of laws. under the bill everyone is still required to follow the firearm laws in each of the different states in which they choose to carry. our founding fathers considered this right to bear arms so important they put it in the constitution, allowing this reciprocity as a simple act of ex tending what our founders originally intended. i hope that congress will honor this principle by supporting this rule and passing this bill which at its core does nothing more than protect the second amendment right of every kansan and every law-abiding citizen. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has left?
mr. nugent: i have one more speaker. mr. mcgovern: a closer speaker or -- mr. nugent: no. just one more speaker. mr. mcgovern: then i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. nugent: moo woodall. -- mr. woodall. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank my friend on the rules committee for yielding. i rise in strong support of this rule today. now, i hear a lot of conversation about states' rights here on the house floor. federalism. you know, that debate that james madison and thomas jefferson had more than two centuries ago. and it's an important debate to have and i hope we have that debate on every single thing that we do in this body. host: we ask ourselves that question every single day, is
this a responsibility and a role the federal government ought to be playing or should this be something that's left to the states? sadly i've heard more of that enthusiasm today than i usually hear down here. but i welcome it. not as a step in the wrong direction, but a step towards that new beginning. i believe that we can absolutely come together around those kinds of uniting issues, does the federal government need to be involved in this or does it not? the reason i'm in strong support of this rule, however, is that it may -- made 10 amendments in order. this bill, this concealed carry reciprocity bill, and in fairness, full disclosure, i'm literally a card carrying member of the concealed carry bandwagon. i've got my georgia carry permit here in my pocket. i have since i was 22 and living in a neighborhood that i thought i needed some self-protection living in. this is a discussion that this body has been trying to have for about 15 years. as long as i remember watching congress this bill has been
knocking around in congress and no one has ever brought it to the floor of the house, despite a broad bipartisan majority of the body co-sponsoring it. i've always wondered why. because, for pete's sakes, if it's something that the majority of the body is going to co-sponsor, it ought to be something the majority of the body is going to support and we ought to bring it to the house floor and let the house work its will. i'm still struggling with the underlying legislation but i appreciate this leadership and this rules committee for bringing the bill to the floor when more than a majority of the house is co-sponsored it and i appreciate this leadership and this rules committee for giving us 10 amendments from which to choose, to improve the bill. there are opt-in provisions, if you're worried about federalism. there are honor state compact amendments if you're worried about federalism. there are study amendments with the g.a.o. to sort out whether or not there are unintended consequences with regard to noncitizen -- nonresident -- not noncitizen, nonresident permits.
these choices are out there for us. not only did this rules committee bring forward a bill that other congresses have not had the courage to bring forward, but it brought forward it a -- it in a way that this body can work its will. eight democratic amendments, as i recall. two republican amendments. that's the kind of house i came to congress as a freshman to work in. i appreciate the work the rules committee did to make this possible and i appreciate, madam speaker, the work of the leadership in guiding us down this path. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an article from "the new york times" entitled "so much for small government." i'd like to ask unanimous consent to also insert an article in the record, an article entitled "how glock will travel" and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter to the leadership of this house signed
by the attorney general of massachusetts opposing this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from georgia that we should somehow be grateful that the rules committee majority threw some crumbs our way. but the fact is, this is not an open rule, this is not an open process. and for a majority that came in saying that everything was going to be open, they have not kept their promise and this is far from it. a lot of good amendments were not made in order, amendments do not have the right to offer amendments here on the floor. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, out of fairness, and especially my republican friendses, in keeping with your proposition when you guys -- when you took the majority, please vote no on this rule. and i will also say, madam speaker, that i oppose this bill because it tramples on the rights of my state and it tramples on the rights of a number of states that have reasonable guidelines for who can carry a concealed weapon and under this bill those guidelines all go away.
so the lowest common denominator carries the day. i don't think that's good for public safety and if you care about states' rights, you know, it's not good for states' rights advocates either. i just want to spend my final moments just reminding my colleagues that we have an economic crisis before us. there are 14 million americans without jobs. there are millions more who are underemployed. we just came back from another congressional break. i don't know where you went on your congressional break, but if you went back to your districts, i find it hard to believe that the most pressing issue that faces your constituency is trying to figure out a way to make it easier to carry concealed weapons from state to state to state. i just don't believe that that's what people are talking about. surely not people in my congressional district. they're talking -- my people are talking about jobs. when i'm at the airport people
talk to me about jobs. that's what they want us to focus on. not on reaffirming the national motto of the united states is in god we trust. i mean, we wasted a day on. that didn't need reaffirming. there it is. right up there in gold lettering above where the speaker sits. it's on the back of a dollar bill. why do we have to spend time debating that? and today we're not talking about jobs, we're talking about a gun bill? now, i know that the special interest lobbyists, the national riffle association, they like this and they want us to move forward object this -- on this. but put this special interest aside for a second and push your -- put your constituents first. and what do our constituents want us to do? they want to us fix this economy. we should be debating some of the opponents of the president's jobs bill. or a jobs bill of your own. but we should be talking about how to put people back to work. not spending time here talking about how to make it easier to carry a concealed weapon from state to state to state.
i mean, this is nuts, that we're spending and wasting this time on this issue. madam speaker, you know, let me give you -- the gentleman from georgia said, a majority of members favor this bill, therefore we should bring it to the floor. you know what? a member of ma -- a majority of members of this chamber also support a bill to hold china accountable for the fact that china manipulates its currency. as a result of that if we actually held them accountable we could actually create an estimated $1 million to -- 1 million -- one million to 1.5 million jobs in america. a majority of members of this house on both sides of the aisle support that. yet we can't get that to the floor. that will help create some jobs. i mean, this bipartisan support -- there's bipartisan support for that, there's bipartisan support for the components of the president's jobs bill yet you will not bring it to the floor. instead we're dealing with this stuff. again, this may be good for pleasing the special interest, but it is not what we should be
doing in this chamber. what's good for this country is to focus on the economy. what's good for this country is to focus on jobs and i will say to my republican friends, you're indifference on the issue of jobs is shameful. it is absolutely shameful. millions of americans are out of work. millions are underemployed. people worried about whether they can pay their mortgages, pay their heating bills, pay their prescription drug bills, whether they can afford to send their killeds to college and this is what we're spend -- kids to college and this is what we're spending our time on? give me a break. we need to refocus in this congress. we need to get our priorities straight. i'm going to tell you, at the top of the list is not reaffirming the motto of this country, it's not gun bills, what's at the top of the list is jobs. let's put america back to work. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this restrictive rule and vote no on the underlying bill and let's bring a jobs bill to this floor. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i'm always amazed at what goes on in these chambers. we hear from the other side of the aisle about talking about jobs. even though this house has passed 20, 20, count them, jobs bills. if you don't believe it, read it. you know, it's -- we talk about issues about in god we trust. i think it is something that we should affirm here in america, about our belief in god. i believe that the second amendment is not a special interest group. i believe the second amendment needs to be protected at all costs. you know, you've heard some in this house that would take away our right to even carry or possess a firearm. madam speaker, you know, in 40 years in law enforcement, it wasn't just guns that killed people, it was every object
imaginable from fist to feet to pipes to kitchen knives. madam speaker, and baseball bats. madam speaker, this is about the ability for those that have a legitimate carry permit to go across the state line and not be subject to arrest. someone who makes an honest mistake by going across the state line, that doesn't have a reciprocity agreement with their current state, and they have a carry permit. madam speaker, this is more about what's right with america in regards to upholding our second amendment, our constitutional right. and so those that are in favor of doing away with all types of guns, i guess, it smacks that they disagree with our founding fathers and our second amendment
right. madam speaker, i support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. h.r. 822 protects the rights of legal gun owners throughout the united states. i've heard this debate this afternoon about the dangers of gun crime. i completely agree. guns are dangerous tools that need to be treated with respect. guns can be used by people to kill other people. however, what i saw in those 40 years as a cop is we need to talk about these in broader terms. what we really need to do is talk about the difference between legal and illegal guns. most people used a gun to kill a human being are not just using a gun they obtained legally, that they are licensed leaguely, that they got -- legally, that they got a permit for. you know, when you look at the numbers of c.c.w. permit holds that are have actually violated the law, at least in the state of florida, it's .001%. those people, there are people
that are criminals and they're criminals simply for having a firearm, even in the state of florida a felon can't possess a firearm. today we're talking about one thing, we're talking about legal gun owners to legally travel from one state to another, that have a concealed weapons permit. i support that effort and that's why i'm a proud co-sponsor, stand here today, of h.r. 822 and as a sponsor of this rule, h.res. 463. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly. i underline strongly, bipartisan legislation. with that i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and
without objection -- mr. mcgovern: madam speaker. on that i request a recorded vote. the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on the question will be postponed. .
mr. young of alaska now at the desk be considered as though printed as the last amendment printed in the house report 112-267, and be debatable for 10 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. young of alaska. page 56, after line 3, insert the following, and conform the table of contents accordingly. section 612, conveyance of demissioned coast guard cutter storis. a, in general, the commandment of the coast guard shall convey without consideration all right, title, and interest of the united states in and to the decommissioned coast guard cutter storis in the section referred to as the vessel, to the museum, a nonprofit entity of juneau, alaska, if the museum agrees, one, to use the vessel as a historic memorial,
make the vessel available to the public as a museum, and work cooperatively with other museums to provide education on and memorialize the maritime heritage of the vessel and other maritime activities in alaska, the pacific northwest, the arctic ocean, and adjacent oceans and seas. two, not to use the vessel for commercial transportation purposes. three, to make the vessel available to the united states government if needed for use by the commandment -- commandant in time of car-r war or national emergency or based on the critical needs of the coast guard. four, to hold a government harmless for any claims arising from exposure to hazardous materials, including asbestos, and polley chlorinated bifeenals, p.c.b.'s, except for claims arising for the use of the vessel by government. five, to bear all costs of transportation and delivery of the vessel. six, to bear all costs of
vessel disposal a cordance with federal law. when the vessel is no longer used as a museum. and seven, to any other conditions the commandant considers appropriate. b, maintenance and delivery of vessel. before conveyance of the vessel under this section, the commandant shall make to the extent practical and subject to -- mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. is there objection? without objection, that will be the order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2838. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
pursuant to house resolution 455 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2838. will the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. emerson, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2838, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for the coast guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of today and an additional amendment has been made in order. when the committee of the whole rose on friday, november 4, 2011, amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-267 offered by the gentlewoman from
new york, ms. slaughter, had been disposed of. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-267. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. landry: madam chairwoman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13, printed in house report number 112-267. offered by mr. landry of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 455, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. landry: thank you, madam chairman. my amendment is simple. it says if another country is fine with having an offshore supply vessel carry a certain cargo in that country's water, then the coast guard cannot object. i bring this amendment because a company in my district is trying to get a vessel certified to operate in mexico, trying to preserve american
jobs. mexico has ok'd the vessel and a.b.s. says it has no objection. the only holdup is the coast guard. as a result, the company in my district currently has the vessel sitting at the dock and workers sitting at home and capital tied up fighting the regulation. again, my amendment is simple. it allows an offshore supply vessel to carry as much oil as it does drilling fluids when that vessel is operating outside of u.s. waters. if that vessel is in compliance with international safety standards for that class vessel. this is a commonsense change. drilling fluids have the same flash point as oil. as such, in equal risk. thus there should be a uniform standard for how much of that type of cargo the vessel could carry outside of u.s. waters. unfortunately, i don't believe that congress needs to act on this matter. i believe that the coast guard can easily make the necessary changes by simply adopting
commonsense language and listening to the host country. for this reason i would offer to withdraw my amendment if the chairman will promise to help to work -- help me work with the coast guard to get this commonsense approach made and american workers back at work. i yield to the chairman. mr. lobiondo: i thank the gentleman from coastal louisiana. as we discussed previously we'll be very happy to work with the gentleman to see if we can't figure out a way to do this. i thank him for his cooperative efforts. mr. landry: thank you, mr. chairman. madam chairman, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-267. for what purpose does the gentleman from puerto rico seek recognition? mr. pierluisi: i have an
amendment at the desk. the chair: amendment number 15, printed in house report number 112-267, offered by mr. pierluisi of puerto rico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 455 the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: thank you, madam chair. i understand the other side of the aisle needs a colloquy so i yield one minute to mr. mica. mr. mica: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like to yield to the gentleman for -- from texas for the purpose of entering into a colloquy. >> i thank chairman mica, i rise to enter into a colloquy with him. chairman, mica, h.r. 2830 requires standby vessels near oil rigs. subsequent to deep water horizon, five major ports have made numerous recommendations for improvements in oil spill prevention in response.
mr. olson: do you agree it would be preferable to review these recommendations and then make comprehensive decisions on prevention response improvements rather than act on a single extensive response strategy standby vessels. mr. mica: i agree with the gentleman. mr. olson: will the chairman work with me as the process moves forward to look for oil spill prevention response strategies that are more effective and less expensive than standby vessels. mr. mica: i understand the gentleman's concern. we'll work with him. and yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: thank you, madam chair. my amendment will make a narrow and carefully tarring thed modification to the -- carefully targeted modification. this amendment would authorize foreign vessels, in particular large yachts and recreational vessels, to transport tourists and other paying passengers
between ports within puerto rico. my amendment would premove an outdated obstacle that makes it impossible for the united states to compete with foreign jurisdictions in the caribbean region when it comes to attracting investment in nautical tourism. puerto rico has the highest unemployment rate in the u.s. an increased nautical tourism has the potential to create new american jobs and spur economic growth. current federal law already allows foreign vessels to transport tourists and other paying customers from a port in puerto rico to any port in the caribbean region outside of puerto rico. including to ports in the neighboring u.s. virgin islands where the act does not apply at all. yet contrary to common sense, this very same vessels cannot be used to transport tourists or other paying passengers between puerto rico's own ports. so, for example, individuals and business can not charter large foreign yachts or
recreational vessels for tourists or other customers who would like to sail between puerto rico's various marinas. my amendment would allow this to happen. madam chair, status quote simply defies common sense. puerto rico consists of multiple islands and is home to 3.7 million american citizens. it has over 700 miles of coastline and over 150 beaches. it is located in the heart of the caribbean sea, recognized as the yachting capital of the world. it is surrounded by island nations like the dominican republic, aruba, and the british virgin islands. all of which have established thriving nautical tourism industries. yet the united states in general and puerto rico in particular have been unable to participate in this growing market. according to the u.s. coast guard, there are a mere 30 or so recreational vessels now operating in the caribbean that under current law are authorized to transport tourists and other paying customers between puerto rico
ports. nothing could better illustrate how the u.s. jurisdiction of puerto rico is being disadvantaged by present law. as noted the purpose of my amendment is simple and straightforward. puerto rico faces many economic challenges. the territory's current employment rate exceeds 15%. while decreased nautical tourism that my amendment would allow would not alone solve the problems, it does have the potential to make a meaningful difference for the communities and constituencies i represent. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this narrow amendment which simply enables the united states to compete with foreign jurisdictions in the caribbean's growing nautical tourism market. thank you, matam chair. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does anyone rise in opposition? the gentleman from washington. does the gentleman from washington seek time in opposition? >> i seek time in opposition.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. i reluctantly rise to reject the amendment by the gentleman from puerto rico which would undermine the jones act. it would allow foreign owned and manned vessels to carry passengers within puerto rico. as such this waiver would disadvantage u.s. maritime operators and sea fairers who might otherwise provide services and its present form we cannot support the amendment. i commend the gentleman from puerto rico for his sincere efforts to expand maritime commerce in puerto rico but cannot support the amendment he's offered today. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from puerto rico. the gentleman has one minute remaining. does the gentleman wish to reserve? mr. pierluisi: how many -- the chair: the opposition does have the right to close. the gentleman from washington has 4 1/2 minutes. mr. pierluisi: i'll be brief,
madam chair. thank you for the time. i hear that there's some opposition, but what frustrates me is that there's no specifics. i haven't yet heard specific way in which my proposed amendment would harm any u.s. flag vessel or industry. indeed, the groups that are supposedly opposing have not been able to articulate any specific amendment that i could make to my bill to take care of their concerns. . rather your concerns seem to be of a vegas quality, mainly that -- vague quality. mainly that they are concerned with any revision to the passenger vessel services act, which will lead to other requests of modifications down the line. but i believe we have to be balanced. puerto rico is economically going through a recession now
for five years in a row. and this could make a difference and helping puerto rico helps the u.s. we are talking, after all, about an american territory, about american jobs. and the nautical industry in puerto rico -- nautical tourism industry in puerto rico and the u.s. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. >> thank you. i have no further speakers or comments and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from puerto rico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- the gentleman from washington. mr. reichert: on -- >> on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: further proceedings on amendment offered by the gentleman from puerto rico will be postponed.
pursuant to the order of the house today it is now in order to consider the amendment by mr. young of alaska now at the desk. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 45 and the order of the house today, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: madam speaker, this is well explained in the unanimous consent by mr. lobiondo and i just urge the passage of the conveyance of the nonprofit organization in juneau, alaska, for use as a historical memorial. and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from washington. >> i claim the time in opposition but i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i just encourage my colleagues to support the young amendment.
and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. young: i yield back, too. the chair: the gentleman from alaska yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 the unfinished business is request the for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-267 by the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-267 offered by mr. pierluisi of puerto rico. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.
those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have. it the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2838, pursuant to the house resolution, reports me to report back to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2838 and pursuant to house resolution 455 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded by any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of
the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for the coast guard for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the house will come to order. members please clear the well of the house. if members will please take their conversations from the floor.
the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> mr. speaker, i'm opposed to the bill in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. larsen of washington moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 2838, to the committee on transportation and infrastructure with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. at the end of the bill add the following, title 8, prohibition -- prohibition on contractor fraud, waste and abuse. section 801, prohibition on contractor fraud, waste and abuse. a, prohibition. the secretary of the department in which the coast guard is operating and the secretary of the army are each prohibited from awarding a contract or issuing a delivery order or task order to a person that's the secretary finds has been
convicted of, one, fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting or obtain or performing a contract or subcontract with the federal government or, two, embezzlement, theft, forgery, brivery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating federal criminal tax laws or receiving stolen property. b, -- mr. larson: i ask unanimous consent that -- mr. larsen: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be recorded as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the house will be in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman may proceed. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this final amendment prohibits the u.s. coast guard and u.s. army corps of engineers from awarding
contracts to felons convicted of contract fraud, waste and abuse. it was just one month ago that a federal magistrate judge indicted four individuals on an alleged bribery and kickback scheme regarding the u.s. army corps of engineers contracts that defrauded u.s. taxpayers of a minimum of $20 million. taxpayer dollars wasted on b.m.w.'s, rolexes, flat screen televisions, first class airline ticket, investment properties across the globe and the list goes on. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman deserves to be heard. if members will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. larsen: in exchange for these kickbacks the contractors were guaranteed millions in sole source open-ended contracts for the total award potential of more than $1.7 billion. that's billion with a b. they were sailing high on taxpayer dollars while other americans were struggling to stay afloat. when they were arrested, the co-conspirators had their sights
set on ads 780 million corps of engineer contract. fortunately they were apprehended before this very large contract was awarded. similarly in august of this year a federal court grand jury in virginia got people on conspiracy, wire fraud, illegal gratuities, false statements and money laundering in connection with a kickback scheme involving coast guard vessel repair contracts. mr. speaker, this august, 2011, kickback scheme is particularly striking because of the coast guard's spectacular contract failures in recent history under the deepwater program. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. larsen: we all know the coast guard's infamous failure was the fail our to lengthen the patrol boats an install new up graded information technology equipment. after eight votes were
delivered, the coast guard determined that the length in holes cracked and were unsafe. we cannot afford to let one more dollar of our limited federal resources, of the taxpayers' limited federal resources, to be wasted. we can help root out these kickbacks with this final and straightforward amendment. this is a plain and simple vote to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. when you hear about contractors who engage in the largest corruption scheme in modern history like those in the army corps, it's clear they need to be put in the penalty box. this final amendment simply says contractors who rip off taxpayers can't get more contracts, specifically if prohibblets the coast guard and the corps of engineers from awarding the contract to a contractor convicted of a fraud or criminal offense related to obtaining a contract or subcontract with the federal government. it also prohibits for a contract for a contractor convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification of records, making false
statements, tax evasion, violating federal criminal tax laws or receiving stolen property from participating. the final amendment ensures that felons convicted of criminal offenses related to receiving government contracts and abuing the public trust will no longer stand to benefit from future federal contracts for at least 10 years. this amendment will not kill the bill, it will simply immediately add this taxpayer safeguard and then the house will vote on final passage of the bill right here and right now. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this final amendment which will ensure that we bust waste, fraud and abuse, and throw these kickback cronies into the penalty box. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. speaker, i would draw the -- i withdraw the point of order and claim the time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. loebsack: um. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman deserves to be heard. members, please take their conversations from the floor.
the gentleman may proceed. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, we've had a very bipartisan effort in coming to this point on this coast guard legislation and our subcommittee and our full committee and i must say i'm disappointed that with all the cooperation and back and forth that we've had, this is an issue that's never been raised. but notwithstanding that, bribery and kickbacks are illegal under any circumstances. this is redundant, it's already illegal to do these things, i urge everyone to vote no on the motion to recommit and yes on final passage and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. larsen: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. i request the yeas and nays. i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the
yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 this is a is a -- 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit, will be followed by five minute votes on the passage of h.r. 2838 if ordered and the adoption of house resolution 463. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 189. the nays are 235. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the adoption of house resolution 463 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 90. house resolution 463. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 822, to amend title 18 united states code to provide a
national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a state may carry concealed firearms in the state. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the gentleman is recognized. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. aside from having one of the best academic programs in minnesota, the eden prairie school district is now home to new state champions in two store thes. boys soccer and girls volleyball. and despite going up against an undefeated team, the eden prairie boys soccer team struck early, scoring their first goal in their game in the fourth minute of the 2-a championship. the eden prairie eagles kept up
the pressure and won the game 3-1 while capturing their second state championship since 2002. and then this past weekend in what the "minneapolis star tribune" deemed epic, the eden prairie girls volleyball team wonned 3-a state championship throughout five sets by battling 32 tied scores, 14 lead changes until eden prairie took the final set 22-20 to win the first state championship ever. so congratulations to these fantastic student athletes at eden prairie high school and also to the coaches and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, there's three things we need to do in america in order to increase jobs and economic growth. number one, we've got to drill our own oil. if you drive a car or use goods and services that came to you by a vehicle using an internal combustion engine, somebody had
to drill for that gas. mr. kingston: now, do you really believe that saudi arabia and libya are more environmentally sensitive than we are? of course not. we can do it in an environmentally sensitive way and become oil independent. secondly we need to have tax simplification. i'm outraged when i hear about people not paying their fair share of taxes. we need to have a tax code that is a half a inch deep and miles and miles wide so that everybody is playing their fair share. and then thirdly, mr. speaker, we need to change the regulatory environment, regulators don't need to approach businesses with an i got you, i'm against you attitude, but more of a partnership. hey, we want to work with you on worker safety and environmental protection and product like the laws, things like this so, that we can work for business and nurture responsible corporate citizenship. and i think we can do that and that will increase our jobs and our economic growth and i yield
under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much. we're going to spend the next hour talking about what's on the minds of most every american. jobs. how do we get a job? what's it going to take to finally go back to work? there's a lot of pain out there and there's a lot of suffering and people really wonder what this congress is going to do to help alleviate this crisis of
unemployment. i want to just share a couple of stories and then ask my colleague from new york to join me, mr. tonko. i was at a meeting that was set up in berkeley, california, as the berkeley lawrence laboratories, one of the premiere laboratories in the united states, and the director of the lab was talking about technology transfer. that is research, the product of that research coming out of the laboratories and then jobs being created from that and new businesses, the entrepreneurial spirit. as he went through his story, i suddenly was so upset, not by the research, not by the technology transfer but rather by the fact that his final statement was, and this company is moving to china to manufacture the product of this
research. and i thought to myself, how can that be, that the investment of the american people and the research, the education of the engineers and scientists and then this research coming out of the la are atory and all of the development -- laboratory and all of the development, finally refined that the whole thing winds up in china. so what we want to talk about today at least in part is this, making it in america. what are the governmental policies that will once again create a situation where we will be making it in america and the director of the laboratory won't be telling me in a meeting that, gee, this great idea is moving offshores so that the manufacturing will take place in china? the reason, he said, that the manufacturing was going overseas is that there was no capital formation, no capital
available. so i am going to spend just a few moments on this before i turn it over to my colleagues. here's what's important. this is where innovation is and this is where innovation fits into our economy. if you take a look over the last decade, the enormous growth in the sales of the innovation companies, it's grown from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. remove your conversations from the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much. $1.5 trillion to $3.1 trillion in the innovation economy. so this is extremely important in the job growth of this country. another thing to keep in mind is this. the innovative companies create the jobs and they grow quickly.
just looking at the total g.d.p., the innovation companies that i showed in the previous -- the total volume, it's over 21% of the american g.d.p. is in these invasion companies. -- innovation companies. so why is it? why is it that this new company can't find the capital to build a manufacturing facility in the united states? well, one of the reasons is wall street and all the games that are going on on wall street. this is particularly important to california and this is this -- it's called venture capital and i.p.o.'s, the initial public offerings. if you take a look at this you'll notice that a decade ago we had a lot of public offerings, and over the last several years we've seen a decline in the public offerings. what the public offerings do is to free up capital by going out
to the public, offering stock, that money then comes back to the venture capital firms and this whole process goes round and round and over and over again creating jobs in innovation. this is something we are going to have to address and legislation is going to be introduced in the weeks ahead for making it in america. as an introduction of this one piece of larger picture of making it in america, i'd like to turn to mr. john lawrence, the great state of connecticut, who is our caucus leader. did i say lawrence? i meant larson. mr. larson: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue and as he's repeatedly come to this floor to talk about something that america is in tune with and that's the understanding and the commitment that we need to
return to manufacturing, we need to return to our industrial base? we need to enhance -- we need to return to our industrial base, we need to enhance our industrial skills, we need to make things here in america. so make it in america has become our agenda over the last several weeks. there have been more than a thousand-plus town forums and hearings where people have discussed the concept of creating jobs and making things here in america. we all know that for every manufacturing job that creates four other service sector jobs, and this is vitally important. i visited a company with their president, bing murphy. the company is called the industrial airflow dynamics. iafd is a manufacturer in the state of california. they make everything in america.
they compete with foreign companies. they're going begging to make sure they get more skilled workers lined up to do something that is extraordinarily unique in manufacturing. and a recent study and survey in the state of connecticut indicated that in the state alone 2,500 manufacturing jobs going unfilled because of lack of skills or appropriate training and the need oftentimes for the small entrepreneur and manufacture who doesn't have a -- manufacturer who doesn't have a huge human resources department to sort through the applicants, to make sure there is an opportunity to do that, well, we are hoping to lead the way in order we're matching skills with manufacturing as we continue to focus on making things here in america. we all know, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, that when you make it in
america every american can make it. i want to say this as well, and i thank the gentleman so much for his leadership on this floor, we have an opportunity that is quickly going to disappear. and that is the supercommittee. we have taken the position within the democratic caucus, there's a very simple equation, that job creation equals deficit reduction. let me say that again. job creation equals deficit reduction. we know from c.b.o. scoring that just getting unemployment, which is at an unacceptable level of more than 14 million americans-plus, and 25 million americans that are underemployed that if we get the figure of 9.1 employment to blow 7% we cut the deficit -- below 7% we cut the deficit by
a third. there is know other silver bullet. there is -- there is no other silver bullet. there is no other item that brings extraordinary relief that i know people on both sides of the aisle desire. this supercommittee, by embracing jobs, has an opportunity, unprecedented opportunity without a cloture vote that is used to block and has been in the senate over 497 bills that we passed or without poison pill amendments in the house to allow an up or down vote on job creation. the president's proposals, the proposals that have been put forward by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and while we may disagree in terms of our approach and method, we all agree about jobs and so why not embrace this opportunity to create jobs?
if this should fail, it will fail because we didn't embrace job creation. we didn't embrace the concept of making things here in america. we didn't do what bing murphy has been doing back in connecticut and our manufacturers focusing on and refusing to do anything other than the patriotic thing which is to invest in your people, invest in the commitment to america, invest in our manufacturing base so that we can put this country back to work, grow the economy and lower the deficit at the same time. americans simply want one thing. as they sit across their dinner tables this evening and have these discussions with their spouses, all they want is the simple dignity that comes from a job. we have an agenda, we have an
opportunity. let's not -- let's not spoil this chance. let's take advantage of the opportunity we have before us to unite the country, put them back to work by making things here in america. i commend the gentleman for his ongoing work, and i commend our colleagues that have come to the floor here this evening to express this deep and abiding concern about jobs, deficit reduction, putting this country back to work, embracing innovation, embracing education and investing in americans so that we can succeed. thank you so much. i commend the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: mr. larson, thank you so very much and you speak well of connecticut and you speak well for connecticut. thank you very much for that. i guess we are going to do our east-west show here. i'd just point out before we go there that america has lost about 40% of its manufacturing jobs in the last 20 years. we can rebuild it.
most of the economic indicators are that america can be competitive in manufacturing. we need to have a level playing field so china currency is an issue. mr. tonko, you have been involved in this innovation discussion for a long time. you have led the innovation efforts before you became a member of congress. so please share with us today your thoughts and we will begin once again the east-west show. mr. tonko: thank you very much, representative garamendi, and thank you for bringing us together about the highest priority that is held by americans from coast to coast and that is job creation, job retention. make no mistake about it, no other higher priority. i agree with the previous statements made by the gentleman from connecticut. representative larson spoke of the absolute simplistic equation of job creation and retention equals deficit reduction. it doesn't get plainer, simpler or more sound than that. it's about creating jobs,
reducing deficit. the job growth will resolve. move forward in resolving several of other major issues out there. you know, your focus, representative garamendi, on the initial public offerings, the i.p.o.'s, as they're referenced, they have dropped precipitously and knowing that then is a downward spiral that doesn't find the sort of investing that is absolutely essential is a very troubling notion. you know, manny will talk about leaving it to the capitalist model. let it just work on its own. well, it's obvious that we need to prime the pump in many areas. and he talked about my role in the state of new york. when i served as head of the new york state energy research development authority, we found that investing for the public sector sources leveraged tremendous amounts of private sector capital. we see it in this global race, this global race on clean energy and innovation is driven by a robust competition and
what we find is the competitors to our american industries are helped along the way with a co-investing, if you will, that comes from their native country. there are companies that are co-investing with their private sector and here we are to cut dollars for research and development, cut dollars for partnerships, cut dollars for incentives that will inspire that sort of robust quality that is essential if americans are going to compete in -- and compete effectively well. and so our trends are out there. they're well documented. we saw that we ignored manufacturing as a sector of the economy. we ignored agriculture, and we focus primarily on service sector and then very narrowly within that service sector with the financial sector. and we know what happened. we turned our back, let the watchdog leave the cage and watch free style go amuck. and what happened?
across this country people who invested all their life savings into the trusted hands of portfolio activity were found without any sort of return. . and then america's economy was brought to its knees. that is not the kind of outcome we want here. and so we said, hey, let's go forward and we've witnessed now the growth of some 2.8 million private sector jobs. that's after a trend with the bush recession of 8.2 million jobs lost. just this past election day, i think you can see some trends out there that are finding the public swaying to the democratic message because they know it's about job creation and job retention and they know it's about investing in the tools and the tool kits that get us those jobs. we're in an idea economy and we need to invest in those ideas, build the prototype, allow it to move to a manufacturing sector and be robust in our attempts. make it in america is the monday that to which we have -- mantra to which we have brought the conference, the democratic
conference, of this house. we are talking in straightforward language about revitalizing, revitalizing america's manufacturing sector. and we can do it and we can compete keenly if we do it smarter. we don't necessarily have to do it cheaper, do you it smarter. i've talked in my tours with manufacturing throughout the 21st congressional district in the capital region of new york state, i have talked with a number of manufacturers. we've done tours, we've visited and heard front and center from the squad that's the leadership squad. there are thousands of jobs in this country from coast-to-coast for which skill sets have to be developed. if we move to an automated phase of manufacturing, there are qualities there, there are skills there, there are, you know, the academics, the analytical skill sets that are required in order for us to move forward aggressively. now, there's a sophistication in our society. a sophistication that finds us creating product lines not yet on the radar screen.
people will suggest or lament that the glory days of manufacturing have passed us by. no. we need to move forward aggressively, proactively in creath the agenda that will -- in creating the agenda that will develop the products of the future and if someone is to suggest that every idea out there, every concept of a product has been conceived, designed, engineered, manufactured, produced, we're kidding ourselves. and so this is an investment in the future. this is a visionary attempt to pull us along into an area that was ignored and ignored that found that -- that ignoring of the manufacturing sector found us falling into the woes of a recession. and so it's time now for us to do it smart, to do it in a way that invests in our manufacturing base, celebrates the empowerment that small business brings to the fabric of our economy, small business, that economic engine that provides the jumpstart to our
economy. they need the assistance and that has been our effort here, talk about revitalizing manufacturing, supporting small business, moving forward with education, higher education, research and development to move the idea economy along. that's america at her best. that's her pioneer spirit. let's continue to move in that directionment and, again, thank you for bringing this dialogue to the floor. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, thank you very much. the view from new york is very similar to the view from california. we've lost 40% of our manufacturing jobs, we can get them back. need a level playing field, china currency issues are very much on the mind of the democrats. we want to make sure that china currency is no longer used in the -- to the advantage. but there's also something here, and i'll take just a couple of seconds before i turn to my friend from texas, the american manufacturing does exist. it's the great middle class. i want to give you one example where public policy makes all the difference.
near sack menow there's a very -- sacramento there's a very large and new heavy manufacturing facility in place. it stretches about a quarter mile, maybe even a half mile, thousands of square feet of buildings, and in those buildings they're manufacturing street cars, light rail and they're also manufacturing locomotives. the company is a german company. in fact, it's one of the largest manufacturers in the world. and they have moved to sacramento to manufacture these pieces of equipment, transportation equipment, because federal law said that the money from the federal government must be used to buy american-made equipment. buy american-made equipment so that we will once again mistake it -- make it in america. i happen to have two bills that do that, that extend the stimulus bill law into the future. not only for transportation but also for solar systems, wind, the new green energy system.
our tax money supports it, let's use our tax money to rebuild the manufacturing base by buying it in america. i know the view from texas is also similar. i've heard sheila jackson lee, the honorable representive from the area of houston, speak on this issue. she's joining us here today on the floor. if you would care to tell us the view from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from california, my colleagues from ohio, alabama, minnesota and new york. i think that as a sufficiently -- it is a sufficiently far reach to know that this is a national issue and we thank you from your perch as an insurer, meaning your experience in insurance, which is also a source of funding sometimes as the insurance industry invests. you know that america is not broke and that america can in fact create jobs. and do it by manufacturing.
so i am delighted to see the make it in america theme continue over and over againment an let me just share some statistics because -- again. and let me just share some statistics because as the supercommittee works, one of the challenges is whether or not they're focusing on creating jobs or just cutting taxes for those who do not need tax relief. 82% of americans say it is important for congress to produce legislation this year, to reduce the federal deficit through a balanced plan combining spending cuts and also ensuring that all americans pay their fair share. in a couple of days will that occur or will we have the same old, same old, which is protecting the rich and not allowing a fair, equal assessment of one's responsibility? 84% of americans say it's important for congress to reach a new federal spending agreement to create jobs, rebuilding schools, improving needs and public transit, preventing
layoffs. and 60% of those surveyed think the federal government should pursue policies to reduce the gap between the wealthiest few and the less well off americans. well, that is what we're talking about today. i notice that mr. garamendi had a poster on i.p.o.'s are down, particularly smaller i.p.o.'s, and that is a source of cash for investing back into small businesses and manufacturing. we did a survey of the manufacturing companies in our district. my friends, you can turn the corner in your neighborhood and find a building that is making something. we do not have to look for the large conglomerate. i'm delighted that we bailed out the auto industry. they are doing well but you know them, you know they go to detroit, you know they make big things and not little things. we found that our manufacturers were embedded by the way our zoning is not -- nonexistent. so we have a little bit more flexibility. but we found these companies embedded in neighborhoods down the street and around the corner
from different neighborhoods. they are right there amongst us. and the question is, are we going to go into the 46th week when our friends on the other side of the aisle do not focus on how to enhance make it in america? what i would suggest is that the payroll tax relief would help, that is in the bill, and access to credit, making sure that banks give access to credit so that the startups can have the equal playing field, but also, my friends, these companies want to expand. when i visited small businesses, happened to not be manufactures -- manufacturers, they all said, can we have money to expand, to create new offices, new services in the doctors office, new ways of exploring resources for a small energy company. so i'm here today to challenge
the friends on the other side of the aisle, the speaker, ready to challenge him to say, you come from ohio, working family, you get it, mr. speaker. work with our leader, nancy pelosi, work with our leadership , from the chairman of the caucus who has been so eloquent, john larson, on jobs, to the whip that talks about make it in america, mr. hoyer, and of course our vice chair and of course our assistant leader, mr. clyburn, and our vice chair, mr. becertificatea. all of these folks, if i've not -- becerra. all of these folks, if i've not left out anyone, have talked about make it in america, but more importantly, we are not broke. we can insist on letting our small businesses and our manufacturers get a leg up and we stop giving giveaways to those who are the beneficiaries of the bush tax cuts and begin some new concepts in funding. i think we can make it. i want to close by simply saying
to my friends in the private sector, you complain when we talk about pass the jobs bill. i frankly think it's a commonsense approach. pay a little tax relief, hiring the chronically unemployed, putting to work teachers so that class sizes can go down, educating your next work force, firefighters, police, etc. it is well documented that our large companies have a very flush cash flow. it is well documented that our major banks are multinational banks are well undowed with resources. my plea is that all of us become patriots, not party belongers, not card carrying, sign wavers as it relates to what party you're in, and begin to invest in america. frankly, our president has stabilized, stabilized the economy. it's not where we wanted to be, it's not bleeding, it's not where we want to go, but it's on the surge of up. the numbers will show -- surge
up. the numbers will show that we can do that. we need the kind of partnership with the private sector that is long overdue and we need the support by our government, of supporting our manufacturing. we can come back before you know it -- we can come back. before you know it we will be percolating along and being the leader, if you will, of manufacturing, businesses, job creation, investment, as not arrogantly so, but the model for the world and how you invest in your people and i'm looking forward to that starting with supporting a number of initiatives that are already suggested and certainly some that i'm introducing. but i am just delighted that we have the thinkers that realize that investing in america is not the end but the beginning of a greater and greater america and yield to the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, representative jackson lee, and thank you for your outstanding leadership on behalf of the texas district that you represent. but your outstanding leadership on this floor. you're so right. everywhere we turn you can see job creation and what it means for the local regional economy.
i have a touring concept that we do in our district and we have a round table discussion routinely held with the small business community. and it is just profound to go around and see how many people are investing in manufacturing out there and their product delivery is powerful and the fact that they're exporting is an encouraging, enthusiastic thought. so it's all about showcasing what can happen and just think of it on a grander scale, when we provide the underpinnings of support, when we invest in that concept of manufacturing and move forward with the incubator networks and all of the activities that nourish the sort of comeback stories that is so essential right now. ms. jackson lee: so important. mr. tonko: after this economy was brought to its knees but an approach that was hard-hearted to manufacturing. it ignored what was happening and the same is true in agriculture and we'll maybe talk about that in a few moments. jackson scrabs jackson you're
absolutely -- ms. jackson lee: you're absolutely right. and just a point about making it america and the companies like the one in california. they are in california, rightly so. and we should be very, very strong on making sure that our federal dollars -- this is not selfish, this is -- we're probably more expansive and liberal than many other countries around the world, to ensure that if you're using our federal tax dollars, you build it, make it in america, and you spread it, there's a company called calf and i know that they're located in new york, we want them to spread some of that construction and building work down in houston, texas, because they're building a light rail with $900 million, potentially, of federal dollars. so we can do this together, make everybody happy, create jobs and then insist upon putting our families, our young people and america first in job creation, building buildup and make it in america. i thank you the gentleman.
mr. tonko: it's about investing, investing our way to a stronger tomorrow, investing our way to opportunity, investing our way to prosperity. i see it all the time, the dollars that were invested from state sources, public sources, some federal dollars in the capital region of new york that i represent, leverage tremendous private sector dollars want investment in the bottom line calculation, in nanotechnology, in semiconductor science, in chip manufacturing and in green collar work force development. these dynamics are so powerful that they have lifted that region to the first of all hubs in america for job growth, the green collar variety, and in the top five as a hub for high-tech growth. so it happens. when you invest, it happens. now speaking about sound voices for a resurgence in our private sector job growth, in our public sector support networks for those employees, a tremendously dynamic voice from our new
freshmen class, representative sule from the great state of -- sewell from the great state of alabama. thank you for joining us this afternoon and i know that you've been a very powerful voice for job creation, job retention, in our economy. . ms. sewell: thank you so much. i am indeed delighted to join my colleagues in discussing making it in america. i think you will all agree that any playbook about job creation must have at its cornerstone the creation of jobs in our small businesses. and so today i rise in support of small businesses and entrepreneurs across the seventh congressional district of alabama and indeed this nation. as america recovers from our economic recession, we must continue to make strategic policy decisions that benefit our economy and encourage job creation. small businesses play a critical role in our economy. they provide jobs, they spur innovation, they indeed strengthen our economy. small businesses are the backbone of our economy and are
responsible for generating half of the nation's gross domestic product as well as employing over half of its work force. in fact, over the past decade and a half, america's small businesses and entrepreneurs have created 65% of all new jobs in this country. that is why i've introduced h.r. 1730, the small business startup savings account act. more entrepreneurs will benefit if they are provided better incentives that will allow them to save and start a new business. on average an entrepreneur who wants to launch a new business spends on average $80,000 in their first year in startup costs. entrepreneurs often go into debt to start their own businesses. many even use their savings from their retirement accounts to build the capital they need to run those small businesses. this bill will allow entrepreneurs to save up to $10,000 per year tax-free so they can start their own small businesses. once an individual starts their small businesses, funds from
the savings account can be used for the operating expenses. the government can't guarantee a company's success. i think all of us will agree with that, but government cannot knock down barriers that prevent hardworking americans from starting their own businesses. innovation is the key to keeping america number one, and small businesses have always been at the forefront of american innovation. we can't expect to start and continue to be competitive in a global economy without making small businesses and the creation of small businesses the centerpiece of our playbook. as we continue to build our economy, we must give entrepreneurs incentives and the tools they need to prosper here in america. when american small businesses are given the opportunity to grow and thrive, they help rebuild our country. our country's middle class and strengthen our economy. we must recommit ourselves to helping create businesses right here in america. my colleagues have been talking
about rebuilding in america and investing in what's good in america. our small businesses are where it's at. they create the bright and prosperous future that we as americans want to ensure. small businesses will help to outinnovate and outbuild our other competitors globally. i urge my colleagues to join with me in standing up for small businesses and entrepreneurs across this great nation and support h.r. 1730, the small business startup savings act. now is the time to blend bold and new initiatives with commonsense solutions so we can strengthen our economy and create jobs right here in america. i thank my colleagues for letting me join them in this hour in promoting all that is good in america and promoting innovation and entrepreneurship right here in america by supporting our small businesses. thank you very much. i yield back my time. mr. tonko: you're most welcomed, representative sewell, and thank you for the
value -- the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, will control the remainder of the hour. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you. thank you very much. but representative sewell, absolutely right on in your focus as to the strengthening and the value added of small business. h.r. 1730 is a powerful response to the needs of small business, making certain that the savings opportunities, especially in those early startup years are made more ballot and more available to small business as a network. certainly the small business community is a tremendous corporate citizen in the fabric of our communities and they get tethered into our communities in a way that enable them to grow and prosper all while adding jobs. and providing the intellect and innovative sort of spirit which is important. speaking of colleagues who have
been outstanding voices on job creation, job retention, we know that ohio has been in the news lately and we have one of those voices from ohio serving in the democratic caucus, one whom i am very proud to know and work with, representative tim ryan, representing communities like youngstown and akron, has been a very powerful force in acknowledging that it's investing in job creation that is our number one concern right now. we've seen what's been happening in ohio. there has been -- there's an outburst of pride coming from that state about the activism that is really speaking to empowering the middle class and we empower the middle class by providing jobs. representative ryan, thank you so very much for being that outstanding voice. ryan fitzpatrick well, thank you and i -- mr. ryan: well, thank you and i want to thank him for really what the essence is and that is resuscitating manufacturing
back in the united states. and that needs to be a goal throughout the country because of what it does for the local economy, what it does for the states, what it does for tax revenue, what it does to the creation of intellectual property because there are many people on the factory floor actually thinking about how this product could maybe be made differently, how value could be added to. it's very important. but it's going to take in part and what's been happening in ohio is a coalition i believe of working class people, of small business people who recognize that we have to make investments into our states and into our country, and what happened in ohio last week with the referendum that was trying to dismantle the bargaining rights of public employees, police, fire, teachers, the very people that we need to protect our communities so that we can have good, strong,
vibrant small businesses, the very people who are educating our kids and our students who are eventually going to go into these businesses were under attack. the upside to this whole thing is that a coalition formed in ohio. a coalition of working-class people who get educated, get trained, have masters keg degrees, protect -- masters degrees, protect people who they go into burning buildings, they deal with all of the societal problems that goes into our classroom but committed to educating our people. 82 out of 88 counties in ohio help beat back this attack. and with over 61% of the vote in ohio beat back this attack. and the real upside to this whole thing is that a lot of people who were in this coalition of police, fire,
teachers, public employees as well as the private sector unions, the auto workers, the steelworkers, the plumbers and pipe fitters, the pile drivers and mill rights and ironworkers and sheet metal workers, there were a lot of these people who used to watch fox news, they used to watch rush -- listen to rush limbaugh, listen to glenn beck and said story after story and campaigning for months, they realize what's been happening here. they realize this assault that's been coming in and funded campaigns from across the country, big money coming in to try to divide the middle class. and try to dismantle the agenda. and i believe that this coalition, mr. speaker, is an opportunity for us to have the political coalition needed to recognize what investments we have to make back in our country. that's what happened in ohio. people are recognizing that they've been trying to get us
divided, who's in a union, who's not in a union, who is in a public sector union, who is gay, who is straight, just divide the middle class, divide the working class. and this coalition came together, and i believe that if we're going to have the kind of investments, if we're going to resuscitate manufacturing in the united states, if we're going to realize that the government certainly can't do everything but it has to do something, it has to make these investments into engineers and good, solid public schools and community colleges and colleges and pell grants so that we can have the work force available to ignite this kind of economic development that's needed around our country. these are about investments and to have $2 trillion to $3 trillion in infrastructure investments that need to get made, we need a coalition that
says, we need those investments. akron, ohio, doesn't have $1 billion to combine their sewer problem. so let's put these building trade workers back to work which is going to generate revenue for the city of akron and youngston and pittsburgh and cleveland and others which will increase their coffers that they will have money to spend on police and fire and teachers and investments back into the community. and then partner with the private sector. ultimately at the end of the day the private sector has got to come in and drive this revolution without a doubt, but it is time for us to make the investments necessary that are going to allow the private sector to come in here and make the private investments that will lead to job creation. and so the bills that we have and that we're offering are an alternative vision. i'll tell one quick story. we were having a conversation one day. a member of congress and i, one from the other party, talking about investments in the
semiconductor industry. and they were down here lobbying, the semiconductor industry was lobbying on investments that need to be made. and one of our colleagues said, well, that's why we're giving you tax cuts, so that you guys in your business can make these investments. and four, five c.e.o.'s said, we don't understand. we're talking about billions of dollars that need to get invested in order for the semiconductor industry to go in and partner and use the technology and the research that has been developed. so it's the government's job to plant the garden, to till the soil, the sunlight, the water, to grow the plants and then let the private sector come in and pick the fruits and vegetables that they may need. that's what we've always done in this country. whether it was military research, nasa, n.i.h., that's what we've did and that's been a recipe for success for us. so i'm excited what's been
going on in ohio because i think we have the political coalition that is needed to give politicses and -- politicians and leaders in this country the backing they need to push this kind of agenda. mr. tonko: representative ryan, what a great coalescing going on in ohio and what a statement by the middle class. people of all backgrounds coming together, speaking with one voice based on a common thread of jobs, the dignity of work, powerful statements that are all -- you know, we should all be motivated and inspired by that outcome. you talked about government's role to plant the garden. let me talk about another sector to associate with that element of agriculture just for a bit here this afternoon. why such a struggle on this house floor to get the dollars for farmers who were impacted by natural disaster? i saw record flooding in my district. we have wonderfully protected soils in the upper regions of
upstate new york. you would think it was part of some industrial sector that there want an ag sector in our economy. all they were asking for is have debris removal dollars, cropland restoration dollars at a time we were impacted by the ravages of hurricane irene and the tropical storm. i am happy to see the push in this house coming from those who visited the districts and really pushed the agenda are able to account for $38.86 billion being added so that we can take programs like the emergency conservation program, the emergency water protection program and allow for restoration of farmland, debris removal and all the activities that will drive productivity back to the farm. all they were asking for was a chance to recover from the forces of mother nature and if you can't assist in a situation like that, if it took this tug of war, if it took advocacy, if
it took putting a bill in the house to really push everyone to move on behalf of our farmers, i voted against that original package because they said zero additional aid for the ag community. unacceptable. so you talk about government planting the garden, that's just a sampling of investing that was critical so you could keep those ag forces going. those ag-related jobs absolutely critical not only to our economic recovery but to the nutritional impact that it bears for all of america's families. mr. ryan: there is something to this idea that there's a lot of things that happen that support our economy that we take for granted, that we don't see all the time. . i think what you're talking about with farmers, food just arrives at the grocery store, you know, a lot of us don't pay atext to all of the intricacies that get to that getting there. same with the police, same with the fire, same with the teachers. you take it for granted that
this is always going to be there. but these people who are the sanitation workers in your city or town are essential to the functioning of our commerce. mr. tonko: absolutely. mr. ryan: so we got to pay attention to this and reinvest back into it. mr. tonko: and it took putting the flood lights onto the situation, where in the middle of tragedy, we're looking to change the rules. we're looking for offsets in order to provide assistance to our nation's farmers. impacted, farms under water, valuable farm land, be it eroded away and we changed the rules. it was unacceptable. just speaking to that hard-heartedness was an exercise for me that was a learning curve because it took every bit of providing evidence from pictorial evidence to documentation of loss that finally moved this house to respond to the needs of our farmers. so, you know, that being said, it's about, i think, investing, as it's been said here in this
special order hour, it's about investing and believing in america. the middle class needs that empowerment, they deserve it, require it. think of it. none of the strata can survive without a powerful middle class. someone needs to build the product, someone needs to purchase the product, enhancing the purchasing power, growing consumer demand will drive private sector job growth. more expectation, more desire to buy products, you put more people on, you develop product line. it works, it's a similar police tick thing to follow. what we want to do is make certain that we empower that middle class, you know, we've seen a lot of outbursts about the social and economic injustice out there and it's about providing a reasonable approach so that our middle class can be vibrant again. and i think it's what people were stating a week ago at the polls, they were saying, we're listening to the democrats' message, we're embracing it, and we're shifting our loyalties. we're now choosing to side with
those who are talking about a wise approach, investing in job creation, which equals deficit reduction. basic, simple, sound. mr. ryan: i don't think anybody's of the illusion that somehow a coalition like this is going to agree on every issue. but what happened in ohio was that there was a prioritization of what really matters, of what are the fundamental issues that are means to be an american, and what's the recipe that america always had that led to our success? it wasn't an accident, you know, that we jumped the soviet union in the race to space. it was a concerted effort on behalf of the government, private industry and the people in -- in the country. and we had this recipe that was investments in infrastructure and research and education and making sure we had good regulations in the financial industry. and we were the world power for a long, long time. and we still have -- are.
but we've seen the decrease in wage, or stagnant wages for 30 years. and attacking the workers now, to say, as they were in ohio, that it's your fault, you're making too much, there was a great placard at one of the ralies, the guy said, i make $30,000 a year, i have a master's degree and i'm the problem. you know. so this is the kind of coalition i think that we need and i think it gets to hopefully a new alternative vision for the country and for our government, which to me is -- it's not about government being too big or too small. it's about the government working and if the people, the working class people, see that the government is working, that it is regulating its markets, making wise investments, recognizing the value of education and the investments we need to make, then they're going to vote in whoever's doing that. but this shrink it and drown it in the bath tub and don't make the kind of investments that we made for so many different years
is not a recipe for success, it's a recipe for disaster. mr. tonko: right. and i think the people feel at risk when they believe that those who have this highest concentration of wealth have just so much influence, the outcome in washington, that it's unacceptable. and they now know who's paid the price. the middle class, when given opportunity, remain silent, or at least mildly content. when you take that away and you then involve this unjust outcome to impact them, then they get -- they get angry. and so the outburst here is, we need the investing. we want our children to have the opportunity to reach for that american dream. and it has always been the passion that drives this country. and when you talked about the race -- the global race on space, during the j.f.k. years, president kennedy acknowledged up front, we're going to do this, not because it's easy, but because it's hard.
people know that these are tough decisions but they also want to hear the commitment, they want to hear conviction. are we -- going to support, are we going to be the underpinnings of human infrastructure, the development of a work force, training, retraining, education, higher education, incentives that provide for research so you can be a land of discovery, land of creating product line, of traveling into new spheres of influence that can just express the magnanimous quality of america and all she offers? when you suffocate those areas of potential, you're denying the middle class its chance at the american dream. and that's what this is about. people see undue influence coming from a very few and denying the vast majority their chance at the american dream and that's what this nation has always been about. it's been there as an ideal, it's been a beacon of hope, it's seen as a garden of opportunity and we need to culture -- move
that culture forward in a way that is driven by sound programs, sound projects, sound policy. it's about the programs, projects and policy. mr. ryan: and a respect for the workers who are ultimately going to elevate this. we see that within manufacturing, how the ideas and the intellectual product that come from the factory floor are driven by those workers who are sitting there every day thinking about how this can be done better. we have so much potential within the work force that is undeveloped, untapped, and not utilized properly, that could lift us up and help us create this whole new economy that is going to get created somewhere by somebody somehow, and it might as well be us and if we make the proper investments, we have the talent and creativity in the country, to make it happen. but it gets back to having a general respect for the workers. we had firefighters that i met make 30 runs in one day on a rig. 30. an get paid $40,000-some a year.
the runs aren't like me and you running over here to vote. they're runs into burning buildings and dangerous situations. mr. tonko: a lot of weight on your back. mr. ryan: carrying oxygen tanks and everything else, and there has been a disrespect for that kind of work. the sanitation worker, the teacher, you know, pushing the blame of all society's problems onto these public workers in that instance, and then now in ohio, for example, they're coming in and they want to make it a right to work state. so those building trait folks who were going to try to get back to work, 21% unemployment in the trade, we were trying to get them back to work with the infrastructure investments we need to make, to say to them, you're frot going to be allowed to have the collective right of bargaining and be able to negotiate contracts and it's going to diminish the wages and everything else, similar to what happened or what they wanted to do in ohio, it's about respecting these people. and when you respect them, they'll come to perform.
but it takes those investments and that general appreciation. mr. tonko: and essential services that are performed. you talked about water and sewer opportunities, the construction projects that we require. it's about human infrastructure, capital infrastructure, physical infrastructure. if we feed that with soundness of investment, not just spending and throwing money at something, but with an accountable plan, one with a vision, one with goals, one that embraces a soundness of future, we are ahead of the race after anyone else out there, we can maintain the soundness of leadership in this global economy if we believe in ourselves. if we believe in the american dream. if we invest. we've been joined by representative john garamendi from the great state of california. he kicked us off, the hour came into my hands and now you're back to revisit. so we thank you, representative garamendi, for, again, serving as inspiration, to really get the thought process moving and
verbalize where we are as a powerful conference in this house and where i think we've attached to the great thinking out there, the overwhelming thinking, of americans. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, thank you very much for carrying on, and, mr. ryan, thank you very much for your insight into what is so obvious, the american people do not want their rights taken away from them. the right of collective bargaining. you're quite correct about that. excuse me for having to step out mirkse constituents from california were here in town and interestingly enough, they were talking about one of the jobs programs that we really need to do. i represent the central valuey of california, the great california dell tarks the sacramento, san joaquin dell tarks the largest estuary. and there's always been severe flooding problems in that area. and so they were asking about how are we going to fund the necessary flood projects? it's been a long, long history
of the federal government, due to the corps of engineers supporting the construction of levees and other flood protection devices. but all of that seems to be ramping down as this mania of cut, slash and burn the budget occurs around here. now, the president offered the american jobs act and in the american jobs act there's $50 billion for infrastructure, part of which, water system, sanitation systems, road, transportation system, but also flood control systems. desperately needed in our area. we could probably employ a couple hundred thousand construction workers immediately if somehow this house were to pass the american jobs act. and so i'm just thinking about the relationship of what we're talking about here on the floor and what my constituents were talking about, the necessity of developing water projects as well as flood control. we really ought to do that because we can take these unemployed construction workers,
a couple hundred, several hundred thousand of them, who are now receiving unemployment checks, they're tax takers, we could put them to work building the infrastructure, the foundation for tomorrow's economy, and they'd become taxpayers. you started off this conversation with something that is so very, very true, i guess, mr. larson did, and that is, the best way to deal with the deficit is put americans back to work. so that was an interesting side bar to work here on the floor but it fits so well with what we're talking about here which is jobs. putting people back to work, using the power, our collective power as citizens of this great country, to employ people by building the foundation for future economic growth. and you mentioned education as one of those pieces. there's so much to do. if you'd wrap us up, i think we have three or four minutes and we can go from there. it's been a good afternoon, sharing our thoughts about how we can create jobs, get
americans back to work, get our economy back to work, and the president's laid out a good bill program and incidentally, it's paid for. we're not going to borrow money to put these construction workers back to work. it's paid for. and the way it's paid for is that those 1% of americans, the super yealt, who's had an income of more than $1 million a year, after all the deductions, that's after adjustmented -- adjusted gross income, $1 million or more, they have enjoyed enormous tax reductions over the last 11 years. and what we would ask is some basic fairness. that they contribute to putting americans back to work, with a small increase in their taxes over and above $1 million. no increase below. mr. tonko: i think what -- to just match some words to what your most recent statement was, we have to think back, too, and look at recent history, to have it speak to us. we borrowed totally, totally for the millionaire, billionaire tax
cuts, and for two wars that were being fought. and now we wonder why we have a problem, a deficit situation, and why we want to blame the worker. well, look, we say, it's about investing in the human fabric. in the core individual. making certain that the skills that can be unleashed by that investment are put into a work situation that can enable us to be a nation of discovery, a nation of innovation, of design, of invention. that's america in her greatest moments. and i think those moments lie ahead of us. i'm optimistic that if we do this plan of investment we will see tremendous growth in our economy. we will see our competitive edge in the global market get all the sharper and all the more keen. however, it takes that investment, it takes that vision, laser sharp, and it takes the commitment to stand up against this tide to just slash and burn, as you indicated,
after so many were witnessing that the very few were given a gift for which we borrowed. now we're asking for someone else to have their turn. america's middle class, pursuing the american dream, deserves that sort of attention, deserves the dignity of work, deserves the respect of those who lead this nation, to do it in a fashion that is going to respond in fullest measure. representative gar mendy, it's been a pleasure -- garamendi, it's been a pleasure to join you on the floor. mr. garamendi: you said that so eloquently. long ago i did a study of the economy and there are five things that need to be done, now from the federal level, six. and they are the things you've been talking about. education, the best education in the world, so that our workers are capable of carrying on the new tasks. the research, as i discussed earlier, about the research from our laboratories and our universities and the new products, we need to make sure
the research is there and then take the research out of the laboratories and create the new products, making it in america, because manufacturing matters. the manufacturing, i know you discussed this, the manufacturing, laying the foundation upon which the economy will grow, the transportation, communication, sanitation, water, flood protection, all of those infrastructure items. and then we need to always think in this context about our nation's security and use our money wisely to provide the kind of defense and security that we need and that's also an energy issue. we will bring that up next time we talk. the sixth thing is one which i think is so very, very important and that is the willingness to change. that what we did yesterday will probably not work today or tomorrow so we must always be willing to change. not be stuck back in the 1790's but rather dealing with the reality of the world in which
we live today and to change our system and be willing to adopt and change. mr. tonko: well, it's been a special order hour that i've enjoyed. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. we yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. schmidt, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. schmidt: thank you, mr. speaker. today i really want to talk about something i think is very critical for this nation and it's about how we get our spending in order. i came from local government before i got here and then state government before i got here. actually i came from a household where i ran the checking account for my husband and myself and our family, and in all cases i balanced things.
you know, when i made out my bills once a month i did what this lady is doing right here. i balanced the checkbook first to see how much money i had in the account so i know how much i was spending and more importantly whether i was overspending so that next month i could ratchet back on the spending to balance things out. when i was a township trustee, the same thing. we looked at our revenue sheets and our income sheets every single meeting twice a month and balanced things out. in ohio, like 49 other states, 49 states, we have to balance our state budget, in our case, every two years. so you can imagine the surprise i had when i got to congress and i realized, we don't
balance our budget at the federal level. we don't balance our checkbook. and i was amazed why we don't do this and maybe that's the reason why we continue to have bloated spending that is weighing down not just the future that lays before us but our children's future and their children's future. you know, ronald reagan in 1982 said regarding a balanced budget that only a constitutional amendment will do the job. he said, we chide the carrot and it failed. -- we tried the carrot and it failed. with a balanced budget amendment we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways and save our economy. man, that was 29 years ago. i got to repeat that because that's kind of like where we are today.
only a constitutional amendment will do the job. we've tried the carrot and it failed, and we tried the stick of a -- with the stick of a balanced budget amendment we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways and save our economy. ronald reagan was right. in fact, in 1995 under a legislature that was in the house controlled by the republicans under newt gingrich, they tried to pass a balanced budget amendment. lost it by one vote. and i believe tomorrow under the leadership of john boehner or the next day sometime this week we are going to try the same thing again. and i just think it's imperative that we don't lose that vote. the american people i believe are on the side of myself and my female colleagues that are going to join me here this
afternoon. because the american people get the fact that we are not balancing the checkbook and when we don't balance the checkbook we don't know what we're spending. if we don't know what we're spending, we don't know how to correct our past mistakes and plan appropriately for the future. and so the last election in 2010 when a lot of seats were changed in this very room, i believe it was a mandate by the citizens of our great thation that said enough is enough, stop the spending and stop it now. the united states is staring down the barrel of a $15 trillion accumulation of debt. $7 trillion of new debt in just two years is more than a figure , my colleagues, it is a wake-up call.
when president obama took office, he said he would correct the problem. and in 2009 he put out an $821 billion stimulus program to stimulate the economy. of course, it cost us over $1 trillion with interest because we didn't balance the checkbooks so we didn't know what that was going to cost. and guess what, it didn't stimulate the economy. it didn't resolve unemployment. for the last 33 months, it's been of over 8%. most have been at 9% or higher. in october of this year, 14 million workers were unemployed. with an additional 8.9 million working part time because they couldn't find full-time work. there were 2.5 million workers who were available for work but had to stop actively searching because of poor economic conditions.
all told over 16% of the united states work force is now unemployed or underemployed. and i truly believe it's because we can't get our fiscal house in order right here on capitol hill. and i believe the linchpin in all that is a balanced budget amendment. i'm going to turn right now to one of my colleagues to weigh in on this, congresswoman from the good state of alabama. mrs. roby: i thank my friend for evening and i do appreciate the opportunity to spend time again with my g.o.p. women colleagues here on the floor to talk about these important issues. and i think that you really have done a great job of incaps lating what -- with your visual here on the floor and that's that hardworking american taxpayers are balancing their
budget every single day. that's why almost 75% of americans are with us on this. they want this balanced budget amendment. and this is a bipartisan action that can be taken in order to restore fiscal sanity. we know that every day there are more and more americans that are out of work and more and more americans that have just given up looking for a job. we are not setting a real good example here in congress when we can't get all our fiscal house in order. i just want to point back to our jobs agenda, the 22 bills that we have sitting over in the hands of the senate right now that we know will get government out of the way so that the private sector can do what they do best and that is create jobs. you know, there are so many men and women, small business owners throughout this country,
that are looking to us to reduce the size of government, get the regulations, the job-killing regulations out of the way and they have capital to invest to create jobs but they're not doing it because of the uncertainty associated with what's going on right here in washington, d.c. and here we have a proposal before us. we have a way for us to restore this fiscal sanity and that is for us to balance our budget, not spend more money that -- than we bring in. you know, we talked about this before when we were down here during the debt ceiling debate. you can't pick up the phone and call your credit card company and say, hey, you know, our -- we can't make our monthly payment and interest payment so can you make me another loan so we can pay the interest payment on the money i already owe you? that's where this federal
government is right now. now, if you can't do that from your kitchen table, why in the world should the federal government be allowed to do that either? so i will just say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in both the house and the senate, let's do this together. let's do this for the american people. let's do this for all the people that are out of work who are looking to us to lead by example and get our fiscal house in order just like millions of hardworking taxpaying americans do every single day. so thank you for the opportunity to share this hour with you and i yield back. mrs. schmidt: thank you. i'd like to add with all of this that the reason why we have such uncertainty in the marketplace with the job creators is because they're looking at us and saying, you lack fiscal discipline here on capitol hill.
and you know, one of my colleagues said to me, well, why do you need a balanced budget amendment to do this? well, quite frankly, because it will tie our hands and force us to do what every single american is doing across the nation. looking at their cash on hand and figuring out how much they've got and how much they can spend, balancing the checkbook before they even attempt to pay a bill. if you don't have it in the form of an amendment, if you -- the legislatures will be able to undo today or tomorrow and that is why the amendment is critical. it will force us to do what 49 out of 50 states already do. with what local governments do all across ohio and across the nation, with what families do at their kitchen table each and every month if not more than a
month, balance the checkbook and figure out what's in there. right now i want to yield to my other good friend for as much time as you may need. mrs. roby: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and for your leadership on this important issue. as a c.p.a. who has spent nearly two decades american families chart their way toward fiscal responsibility, i can tell you that if you want to get serious about getting your finances in order, then the very first thing you have to do is balance your budget. if you want to see our economy moving again, if we want to ensure we are the most powerful and pros pus nation on earth then we must balance our budget. ms. jenkins: if we learned one thing over the past few years, it's that we expect washington to balance its books on its own, to really force the tough spending decisions and to ensure we spend our money as
efficiently as possible, we must require that washington balance its budget. to put it frankly, america needs a balanced budget amendment. we came close 16 years ago but since then our national debt has grown from $4 trillion to $15 trillion. we're facing a crisis. we need a balanced budget amendment. and we need it now. but if you don't want to take my word for it, you can take the word of our colleagues from across the aisle who in the past few years have said things like this, and i quote, the issue of balancing the budget is not a conservative or liberal one, nor is it an easy one but it is an essential one. or again i quote a friend from across the aisle, i am proud to be part of a coalition that is actively working to begin putting our country back on a secure economic footing. the balanced budget amendment won't achieve that all by itself but it will help ensure that we don't repeat the
mistakes that helped create our current situation. and finally, again, i quote a friend from across the aisle, this amendment would send a strong signal to the financial markets, u.s. businesses and the american people that we are serious about stabilizing our economy for the long term. and what did the democrat leadership say about this very issue in past years? they said they would welcome it. they said they would welcome it. but what are they saying today? no. they're against it. it is time for our friends across the aisle to put our children before their politics, stop fighting this landmark achievement out of sheer partisan spite and do the right things. we all need to support this measure, not because it's easy, but we need to show the courage because this is what matters. let's come together and take a stand for fiscal responsibility, show your kids and grandkids that we cherish
our future. mrs. schmidt: the passage of a balanced budget amendment will keep us from spending more than we take in. it is the only method guaranteed to control our spending. by controlling our spending, we'll lower the deficit, which will lower interest rates, which will contribute to greater economic growth. the passage of a balanced budget amendment will provide job creators with a better understanding of the economic environment in which they can expect to do business. that's called certainty. thereby encouraging investment and expansion. but i could go on and on right now, my good friend from florida, i will turn it over to you, because i want to hear your thoughts on the balanced
budget amendment. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, i thank the gentlelady from ohio for yielding me the time and i congratulate her leadership on this important fiscal issue that permeates throughout our society and throughout our families and throughout the entire budgetary crisis we find ourselves in. i'm so pleased that for the first time in nearly 15 years, the house will be voting this week on a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. as a mother and a grandmother, i have long supported this proposal. itle will ensure that we fix the burden -- it will ensure that we fix the burden, and that's what they are, the burden of endless deficits that's fallen on future generations. unfortunately, as you know, mrs. schmidt, the need for this amendment has never been greater. a constitutional amendment can set us on the path to
long-term, fiscal stability, and restore confidence after decades of deficits. two queers ago, the -- two years ago, the united states experienced its first trillion-dollar federal budget deficit. we thought things were bad then. last year, we experienced our second trillion dollar deficit. we thought things were bad then. this year, our annual deficit has reached over $1.3 trillion. the third trillion-dollar-plus deficit in our nation's history. it took the united states over 200 years from the presidency of george washington to the presidency of bill clinton to amass the amount of debt that was added since the year 2006. that is shocking. according to the u.s. treasury
department, our nation's debt currently stands at nearly $15 trillion. think of that. astronomical amount. $15 trillion. which amounts to -- how much is that per person? because that figure is so large that we can't fathom, we can't really appreciate what that is. $47,900 of a tax on every living american. the debt has sharply increased to nearly 100% this year. the highest level since world war ii. these are alarming statistics. growing debt increases the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis. during which investors would lose confidence and the government could lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. if we do nothing, the annual deficit will grow to consume
nearly 1/5 of the entire u.s. economy. the annual deficit will grow to consume nearly 1/5 of the entire u.s. economy. and the debt would grow to greece-like levels of over 100%. i believe that just as our families and neighbors, like the lady you show there on that poster, have had to tighten our belts during this recession, well, then the federal bureaucracy must do the same. while the budget reforms we have passed in the house were a good start, only a constitutional amendment can ensure that we will not stray from the path of a balanced budget as we did 10 years ago. a constitutional amendment will help ensure a future of stability for our children and for our grandchildren. so i urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote in favor of this balanced budget amendment. it is history in the making this week. and i thank mrs. schmidt for your leadership and for trying to straighten out this fiscal insanity mess we find ourselves in. with that, i yield back. mrs. schmidt: i thank my good friend from florida. as i said a moment ago, a balanced budget amendment will legally prevent us, tie our hands, from spending more than we take in. it's the only method available to control spending in washington. and it will lower our interest rates, which will contribute to economic growth. this balanced budget amendment is a job creator because it puts certainty back into the marketplace. it will remove legislative gimmicks, the kind of accounting gimmicks that says
we really cut when we really haven't, from the budgeting process, because it'll be just like what this woman is doing with her checkbook. how much in, how much is going out, are we in the black or are we in the red? since the passage of a balanced budget amendment or the attempt to pass a balanced budget amendment in 1995, by a bipartisan house and subsequent failure by one vote in the senate, the national debt has grown by $9 trillion. you know, if had just had that courageous person in the senate in 1995 to say, yes, i dare say we wouldn't be in the position we are in today. the passage of a balanced budget amendment would be a key step to rebuild, restore, and regain the american public's trust and confidence in the united states and not just the confidence for the americans to
have in us, but the confidence for our creditors around the world. you know, this resolution does a couple of things. it prohibits outlays for a fiscal year except for those repayment of debt principal from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year, except those derived from borrowing and last congress, by a 3/5 roll call vote, none of this voice vote, roll call, we ought to put our card in the machine and show how we vote up on the wall, authorizes a specific excess over the outlay system of if you have to overspend, 3/5 of us have to agree to overspending. it requires a 3/5 roll call vote of each chamber to increase the public debt limit, again, none of these shenanigans about a voice vote when we're all in the corns of the hallways or back home. each and every one of us has to
take our voting card, put it in the machine and americans will see how we voted right on that screen. it directs the president to submit a balanced budget to congress annually. wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air? it prohibits any bill to increase revenue from becoming law unless approved by a majority of each chamber by, again, a roll call vote, that means putting your card in the machine and having it displayed on the wall. it authorizes waivers of those provisions when a declaration of war is in effect or under other specified circumstances involving military conflicts. so again, in case of a national emergency, where we would be placed in harm's way, it allows for those provisions to occur. my fellow friends in this chamber, it is so important that we think about doing this. and doing it this week.
because i do not believe we can wait any longer. you know, the united states, as was said before, is spending almost -- has spent almost $15 trillion of accumulated debt, $3.7 trillion of new debt in just two yeeks. it's an alarming figure. no wonder our bond creditors are looking at us and shaking their fingers. our spending-driven debt crisis poses a lethal threat to our country's economic recovery. our national security and our sovereignty and the standard of living for future generations, and mr. speaker, i have a stake in these future generations because not only do i have a wonderful daughter and great son-in-law, but i have the two best grandsons a grandmother could ever have and i look at them and see such potential in their eye, and i look at them
and i remember how my ancestors came from ellis island with nothing but pennies in their pocket, maybe not even pennies. how my own father started with nothing and worked and worked and worked to put food on the table and give us the promise for a better future. how me, from an ordinary beginning, born and raised on a farm, could end up serving in the u.s. congress. all of that is a fabric of the american dream. all of that is the potential that we can be and should be and i see it being threatened by our overspending. mr. speaker, about 10 days ago, i took the staten island ferry. you know me, i was a runner, i was doing my 90-whatever marathon it was. my friend my cousin said, let's take the ferry. and i did. and it reminded me of the critical juncture we are in in
our nation. on the way down in the cab, where you catch the ferry is real close to the world trade center. my daughter lived in new york during the time of the attack on the world trade center. i had just taken her to the windows of the world for dinner three weeks before those towers came crashing down. i said, would you mind driving me around, i want to see what the new building looks like. i saw the rebirth of the brick and mortar of that emblem in new york. and then i got on the boat, on the ferry, the son was -- sun was coming up, dancing across the water. i saw ellis island and i thought, wow, my ancestors came through there. my own grandfather with nothing came through there and ended up in cincinnati. then i saw the statue of liberty and i thought, oh, my gosh, that is the beacon of hope. that's where people from across
the globe, they want to come to america because they know they have the chance to be the best person they can be. they have the choice and the chance and the opportunity to be what they want to be, to chart their own destiny and there are so few places around the world that give them that choice. and then we landed, got to the bridge, the bridge where we start the marathon, and because i was in the second wave, we started with "america the beautiful" and then we started with -- then they sang "new york, new york," the frank sinatra song. actually it wasn't "america the beautiful," it was "god bless america," but i digress. i started to cry. it wasn't just soft tears, these were tears running down my face. i cried because i realized we are at a crossroads, we could lose all of this. all of this could be lost
because we're allowing ourselves to become obese with debt. let me repeat that. obese with debt. you know, our first lady likes to talk about obesity in america and yes it's a problem. but we've become obese with debt. and we have no road map to get out of it. the road map to get out of it is a balanced budget amendment. because it says, you can't spend more than you take in. you can't do it. oh, and if you decide in this chamber to do it, we're going to see how you vote. it's not going to just be 51%. or 50-plus -- or 50 plus one. it's going to be 3/5 of everybody in this chamber. we're going to have to show america how we voted right there on that wall. so if you're going to overspend you better doggone well have a good reason to do it.
again, let me repeat what this measure does. requires the congress not spend more than it receives in revenues unless a supermajority, 3/5, vote and end, roll call -- in a roll call vote to vote otherwise. it requires a corresponding 3/5 vote to raise the debt ceiling, again, a roll call vote. requires the president to submit a balanced budget to this auspicious body. requires him to do that. him or her. requires the majority roll call vote for any proposed bill to increase taxes. so if we want to do this by increasing taxes, you've got to have 3/5 to do that. it also provides for a limited exells in times of war and serious mill -- limited exemption in times of war and serious military conflict stork
so it protects us in case we have a crisis against us and it will take effect the fifth fiscal year after the ratification by the states, because, my friends, the problem is our national debt crisis. and now i'd like to turn this over to my good friend, mrs. ellmers. mrs. ellmers: thank you to my good friend from ohio, thank you for holding this special order. you know, the american people are ready for solutions, as you know, and we are working so hard here in the house on coming up with those solutions. and we will be voting on a balanced budget amendment, and i'm very excited about that. as has been required by the budget control act that we passed in august. i'm here now as one of those new freshman, and it's amazing to me and, of course, we all know that for over 200 years we
functioned without the federal government having to -- mrs. schmidt: let me ask you a question. when you do your bills, do you do what this lady is doing, balance your checkbook first? what happened if you didn't do that? mrs. ellmers: all of our homes, we live by a budget. the american people had to redo their budgets over and over and over again. why? because of the economy that we're in today, because of the cost and yet the federal government does not do that. we've been -- now we're up to, what, 930 days that the senate has not passed a budget. we passed our budget. we passed a budget in the house. the president had a budget but his budget calls for over $1 trillion more of spending that we were not taking in. mrs. schmidt: it didn't balance it. mrs. ellmers: it didn't pal in the senate. ours didn't come up with a vote. so washington continues to
function without a budget, and yet again our households function with a budget. mothers and fathers are up at 3:00 in the morning worrying about how they're going to pay the bills this month, and yet the federal government just says, doesn't matter. we can just continue to spend money. as long as we don't have a budget, we can spend as much as we want. that is the problem, and the american people are tired of this. they are tired of us just -- we are an open checkbook writing, having to raise the debt ceiling to take care of the bills that have already been submitted and the interest that we have to pay. the balanced budget amendment that we're talking about passing passed the house in 1995, went on to the senate, missed passing by one vote. where would we be today in our economy if that had passed back then? the federal government would
have had then been held to a vote, they would have had been held to a budget. we wouldn't have to pass continuing resolutions that the american people look to us in washington and say, where is the leadership? how can that possibly be that that's the way they're functioning? and yet this is what we have to do to keep washington running because washington does have a purpose. we have to provide for the national defense. we have to take care of our seniors. we have to take care of those individuals who cannot take care of themselves. and yet without a budget we have no way of deciding how much that will be. and so we continue on. this version makes it harder to raise taxes. this version is substantial. the balanced budget amendment
says that in order to raise the debt ceiling, the future will have to have 3/5 majority to vote in each chamber in order to raise the debt ceiling. that will become even more difficult. these are what the american people -- this is what the american people are calling us for to do. they're crying out for leadership. if we pass this balanced budget amendment in the house and it goes on to the senate and passes there as well, it will move on to the states for ratification. this will be historic. we will now be saying to the federal government you must adhere to a budget. it's simple as that. the most basic function of any household and any business is to have a working budget in place and yet the federal government in its arrogance says, no, we do not. and so therefore we are stuck in this situation that we, as you know, are dealing with
every day, trying to figure out how we're going to pay for the things that we have. that the american people need. under president obama, the national debt has increased 34%. clearly it is time to stop. clear the american people -- clearly the american people are saying to us, come up with a solution. we are dealing every day here in washington with trying to make it through, trying to build a foundation for the future. this balanced budget amendment will be a tool that we can use so that our children and our grandchildren will know prosperity and we will ensure it and it's time to get it done. thank you so much for letting me speak on this issue. mrs. schmidt: i thank you so much for your attention on this matter and you are absolutely right. we have got to get control of the spending and get control of it now. you know, it reminds me when
you've got -- when you're trying to go on a diet and so if i'm trying to go on a diet back home -- believe it every now and then i have to watch what i eat -- i don't sit there and have every candy bar in the world in front of me and open them up. that only entices me to want to eat it. if i want to go on a diet, i don't buy the candy. i buy apples. i buy bananas. i certainly don't attempt myself with something i know is only going to be wasted calories and put on weight. and yet we don't do that here at the federal level. we say, well, it's ok. we'll cut spending tomorrow but we'll spend today. if we had a balanced budget amendment we couldn't have that attitude. we'd have to look at every single dime that's in our checking account and account for it before we built a new program. i mean, look at how many attempts there are for new
programs, small and large, right here in this body. you've been here 11 months. how many programs, ideas have come before you and you've had to say, can we afford it? mrs. ellmers: right. mrs. schmidt: here we don't have to answer that question. we have the freedom to do it. may not be able to afford it. not balancing the checkbook so we don't know. it doesn't matter. it's ok. no, it's not. we have to force ourselves to do what's right for america and not just here in 2011. but in 2111, in 2211, in beyond. the only protection that we have is with a balanced budget amendment because it ties our hands to future spending, it forces us to balance that checkbook and do what's right for america. i will turn some time over to my good gentleman friend to carry on, sir. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, this discussion is about the balanced budget which is outstanding. mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 466, resolution providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentlewoman from ohio may continue. mrs. schmidt: thank you. and thank you for that clarification. as we are looking at this we know that 95% -- the american public is with us on this. 95% of americans believe that the deficit problem is what's ruining our nation. and 75% of those that recognize that the problem is the debt and the deficit. almost 75% say balanced budget amendment is the right tool to
make the answer, stop the spending. so i am going to turn it over to my good friend the state of washington. ms. herrera beutler: i want to thank you for talking about the balanced budget amendment. we stand together across this country, as business women, teachers, doctors, farmers, educators, nurses and attorneys committed to restoring america's prosperity. committed to getting our fiscal house in order, committed to stopping wasted spending and committed to putting americans back to work. and that's why we stand together united in support of the balanced budget amendment. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: as a mom of two young children and greatly concerned about the growth of government spending and the government debt, i
believe it hurts our economy today and threatens our children tomorrow. james madison said that the trickiest question the constitutional convention confronted was how to oblige a government to control itself. history record not a single example of a nation that spent, borrowed and taxed its way to prosperity but it offers us many, many examples of nations that spent and borrowed and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. and history is screaming this warning to us that nations that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long because before you can provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty you have to be able to pay for it. not long after the constitutional convention thomas jefferson said if he could make one change to the constitution it would have been to limit the federal government's ability to borrow
money. ronald reagan said there were two things he wished he would have accomplished while in office and that was the line item veto and the balanced budget amendment. as has been mentioned, we came one vote short in 1995, and i can't help but think what a different world we would be in today both economically and as it relates to the national security if we had that balanced budget amendment in place. 49 states already have a balanced budget amendment. 74% of americans are demanding it. the house republican women will join together in strong support of a constitutional amendment that will forever change the way washington spends money. this is our time, this is our moment, and we must seize it. thank you, again, for yielding me some time. mrs. schmidt: and i thank you, my good friend, for that eloquent view, an argument for the balanced budget amendment because we are at a crisis. we are at a threshold, we are at a fork in the road in our country.
and if we don't get this spending under control, your children and my grandchildren, they are about the same age, are going to have a really tough time charting their own destiny. this is america. this is the place where streets are, quote, paved in gold, and it's the gold of sweat and -- from the americans before us, the americans that are here with us now and the americans of our future. but if we don't stop the unbridled spending in washington, our future is not going to be able to continue to pave the way with gold. this spending has to stop. to say we'll do it tomorrow is not enough. we have to force ourselves into fiscal discipline. and that only way to do that, the only way to legally bind us is through a constitutional
amendment because the constitution says one legislative session can't bind a future legislative session with anything unless it is written in the constitution. that means what? a balanced budget amendment. if we are going to control the spending, we have to have the balanced budget amendment. i think we're going to take this historic vote on thursday or friday. this is not a partisan vote. this is what is right for our future. this is what americans, 3/4 of americans get it, the woman on this picture that is balancing her checkbook gets it, my brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, that are probably balancing their own checkbook sometime this week, they get it. the local government that i used to represent, they have to do it. they get it. the state legislature that i came from, they just balanced theirs on june 30 of this year.
they get it. i think it's insane that we don't do the same thing. mr. speaker, this week we're going to do mg that is right for america. it's not a partisan -- doing something that is right for america. it is not a partisan thing. it is not a bipartisan thing. it is an american thing. it is what will preserve us for the american dream, not just for our children but their children and their children. it will promote economic security and national security. it will say to the world, we're ready to stand as a nation with a firm financial foundation. it has to happen with a balanced budget amendment. to my good friend, do you have anything to add? >> all across this country, families have been making tough
decisions. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: families and states have been making tough decisions because they don't have the luxury that the federal government does to continue to borrow or print money to cover everything that we want to spend. mrs. schmidt: you're right. can i go back to the local government i represent? they have to ratchet back their spending because revenues are not what they used to be. in ohio, they have to ratchet back their spending. because they have to balance their budget. they can't go in the red. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i don't pretend for a moment that the balanced budget amendment will solve all our problems but i do believe it will force congress to start living within its means, to start having that debate over what is the appropriate role of the federal government. what can we send back to the states? that's the debate we need. that's the debate that the balanced budget amendment will
force. and you know, we came one vote short in 1997. it included joed bien -- biden's vote. he voted for the balanced budget amendment in the senate because it was what the people wanted and he felt it was important to be on the side of the people and that's where we need to just continue to elevate this issue, make sure that americans are calling their members of congress, their senators, and asking for this vote on the balanced budget amendment. this is one of the most important votes that we will take during our time in congress. this is one that we need to make sure that we pass. mrs. schmidt: thank you, and i thank you for your time, i know you have a busy schedule and i know you've got those two adorable children you want to give some love to. and the best love we can give our children and grandchildren is by passing this balanced budget amendment. ronald reagan was so right in so many ways but especially
when he said if we're going to resolve our overspending it has to be through a balanced budget amendment. 29 years later, we have to hear his words and act on them. if we don't, 29 years from now, i'm not sure if we will be the greatest nation that we are today and with that, i yield back. well, if i have somebody here that wants to talk about this, i think i can say a few more words about where we are with this. you know, my good friends across the aisle, they want to talk about how we create jobs. and we do need to create jobs. and our president, as i said earlier, had this stimulus bill that he thought was going to create jobs and didn't create any jobs. and then just a few months ago, we rolled out a new jobs bill, half a trillion dollars, that he thought was going to create
jobs but i don't think it's going to create jobs either. it's just going to add tour national debt. the reason why he can do all of these things is because he doesn't have to do what this lady does each and every day and that's to balance the checkbook. americans want a checkbook that's balanced. you know, when you look at america, i would like to show another visual. i'd like to talk about what a few other people said in addition to ronald reagan. ben franklin, creditors have better memories than debtors. george washington, as a very important source of strength and security, cherish public
credit. one method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible. oh, my good friends in the house, if we'd only utilized his words. to use it sparingly as possible. both sides have been part of the problem. this is not a republican or a democrat sin. this is a sin from past congresses. this is the sin we can rectify. thomas jefferson. the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is put swindling futurity on a large
scale. he was saying, you can't spend your way out of debt. you can't spend today, put the burden on the children of tomorrow and expect a healthy economy. no nation has ever been successful in doing that. we in america will not be successful in doing that. and that's why we have to have the balanced budget amendment. my good friends in the house, this week is a very important week for america. we need to pass the balanced budget amendment and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.
mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate so much the comments of my friend from ohio, from washington state, good people, good observations. it's an honor to serve with devoted people like that. spending is at an all-time crisis. we do need a balanced budget amendment. there's no question. we have got to have a balanced budget amendment. great senator from the state of texas, phil gramm, joined forces and got a bill called -- referred to as gramm-rudman through, that was supposed to force legislatively the house an senate to only spend within the revenue coming in.
but since it was legislation, since our bodies can create such legislation, both bodies can undo such legislation. just like both bodies can create a debt ceiling bill, as occurred in late july, early august of this year, both bodies can decide to do something different a few months later. that's the problem with legislation. that's why we do need a balanced budget amendment. now, the bill that was brought through committee this year, this 112th congress, titled h.j.res. 1, it passed out of committee, the judiciary committee, it says that the purpose is proposing a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states.
massive number of co-sponsors. and it was a good bill. it was. it is. and our gratitude goes to mr. bob goodlatte. he's been a strong proponent for advancing a balanced budget amendment for numerous congresses for many years. and he has done a good thing with this bill. i appreciated his also including an amendment that i brought to committee that was passed in committee and is part of the joint resolution. but it's house joint resolution 1. it's a good bill. it's to provide for a balanced budget amendment. and in article section 1, it
simply says, total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year unless 3/5 of the whole number of each house of congress shall povide by law for a specific excess of outlays of receipts -- outlays over receipts by roll call. you might think that would be sufficient, just to sato tall outlays cannot exceed total receipts. but those of us who have been around congress long enough know that's not good enough. unless you add, as mr. goodlatte does in section 8, total receipts shall include all receipts of the united states government, except those derived from borrowing. if section 8 is not in there, some clever member of congress down the road, if the balanced
budget amendment were made into law as a a -- as an amendment to the u.s. constitution, somebody would be clever enough to say, hey, it doesn't say you can't borrow. it just says you can't outlays exceed total receipts. receipts, if you get loans, you got money coming in, even from loans that ought to be good enough. so we need section 8 that says total receipts include all receipts except those derived from borrowing. it's a good provision to have in there. because we know that this body, different parties in charge, different groups in here, as members of the house and senate, have always had people that found a way, found a loophole, found a way to get around the laws of the constitution. good example, great example of that, is the obamacare bill.
article 1 of the united states constitution, section 7, makes very clear that any bill that raises revenue, increases the amount of revenue, it has to start here in the house. it can originate in the senate -- can't originate in the senate, it has to start in the house. that's where the founders wanted bills involving taxes in any way that raise revenue at all had to start in the house. people found a way around that. the election of scott brown in the senate made clear that they were going to have to do something different than that was origin that willly planned in order to get the obamacare bill passed. so, they took a house bill, they knew they couldn't wait on the house to do anything, they would have to start it, so to
get around the clear requirements of the constitution, that bills that raise revenue, as did the president's health care bill, raised taxes quite a bit, actually, they said, oge, we're going to take a house bill that's already passed the house, they took one that provided a tax credit for first-time home buyers who happen to be veterans. that was the basic intent of the bill. and beginning with line 1, page 1, the senate then deleted every word, and substituted therein 2,400 or 2,500 pages of obamacare. that way, the senate could say, it didn't originate here in the senate. this is a bill that originated in the house. we just strung every single word and put in the senate bill. clearly that violates the intent of the constitution. because clearly that health
care bill did not originate in the house. but that was deemed to be a loophole in the rules and in the constitutional law and so it's been gotten away with before and it was gotten away with on that bill. so we know games get played like that. if you don't specify the receipts do not include borrowed money, then somebody's going to figure that out and use it and probably get away with it. it has to be in there. the rule has now been reported -- reported from the rules committee about the balanced budget amendment version that we're going to be taking up. and people keep referring to it as a clean balanced budget amendment. that's the one we're going to take up. one that does not have anything else other than total outlays must not exceed total receipts.